Re: [v5 1/3] evr: Add tests

[Alexandre Julliard]

Fabian Maurer  writes:
> +static void test_evr_filter_aggregations(void)
> +{
> - const IID * iids[] = {
> -
>    &IID_IAMCertifiedOutputProtection, &IID_IAMFilterMiscFlags, &IID_IBaseFilter,
> -
>    &IID_IKsPropertySet, &IID_IMediaEventSink, &IID_IMediaSeeking, &IID_IQualityControl,
> -
>    &IID_IQualProp, &IID_IEVRFilterConfig, &IID_IMFGetService, &IID_IMFVideoPositionMapper,
> -
>    &IID_IMFVideoRenderer, &IID_IQualityControl
> - };
> - int i;
> -
> - if(!strcmp(winetest_platform, "wine"))
> - {
> -
>    skip("Not supported yet.\n");
> -
>    return;
> - }

I don't think it's useful to have a test that doesn't test anything. You
should mark the tests as todo but still run them. If that's not
possible, it should wait until we have something to test.

[v5 1/3] evr: Add tests

[Fabian Maurer]

> I don't think it's useful to have a test that doesn't test anything. You
> should mark the tests as todo but still run them. If that's not
> possible, it should wait until we have something to test.

Yes, currently the tests give errors when run on wine. Policy is that we don't 
add a test that fails, correct? Is it okay to add a test that fails inside the 
todo block? Because that's counted as failure for some reason.

Regards,
Fabian Maurer

[v5 1/3] evr: Add tests

[Alexandre Julliard]

Fabian Maurer  writes:
> > I don't think it's useful to have a test that doesn't test anything. You
> > should mark the tests as todo but still run them. If that's not
> > possible, it should wait until we have something to test.
>
> Yes, currently the tests give errors when run on wine. Policy is that we don't 
> add a test that fails, correct? Is it okay to add a test that fails inside the 
> todo block? Because that's counted as failure for some reason.

If it succeeds inside a todo then it's counted as failure. If it fails
as expected it's not counted.